Fwiw, the judicial does not serve to settle arguments between the legislative and the executive. It exists to rule on matters of law.
Who was it that settled the question in Nixon v US?
It was Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski that issued the subpoena, leading to USA vs Nixon at the Supreme Court. It wasn't Congress. It was a dispute within the executive branch.
And it only went there because Nixon was the first president to ever defy a congressional subpoena. I'm pretty sure he was the only one until now.
Fwiw, the judicial does not serve to settle arguments between the legislative and the executive. It exists to rule on matters of law.
Who was it that settled the question in Nixon v US?
It was Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski that issued the subpoena, leading to USA vs Nixon at the Supreme Court. It wasn't Congress. It was a dispute within the executive branch.
This is true. What is also true is that it will be the SCOTUS who will also settle the dispute between the executive and legislative vis a vis the various subpoenas issued by the legislative that are not being honored by the executive.
Which goes back to what was written earlier. The House has the sole power of impeachment, and it issued lawful, legitimate subpoenas. Even if it goes to the Supreme Court (which is what Trump wants), the process shouldn't depend on what the Supreme Court says about a power given to the House and that is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Which makes Turley's argument a weak argument. I think that's why the House is right in proceeding without waiting for the courts and can have a legitimate article of impeachment that refers to obstruction of Congress.
Again, I disagree. Though I don't agree with Trump and his blockade or his faulty logic, these issues of disagreement between the branches have been ongoing issues (from long before the Trump administration) that need to be settled one way or the other. We need answers, though I wish we had different membership in the court.
Congress does have subpoena power but even that has limitation. What if congress subpoenaed Obama's grades? Is it automatic that he would have to turn them over just because of a subpoena?
I also believe that the SCOTUS will rule against Trump on all, or nearly all, of the issues regarding turning over information or providing congress with the witnesses they have subpoenaed.
Last edited by ribeye on Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52656 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:19 pm Post subject:
To touch on what Omar was saying re: Gabbard, it's worth noting that some of the people who complain about the "smearing" of Gabbard are the very same people actively engage in smearing other candidates who are actually Democrats ("Biden is a creepy old perv" . . . "Harris is a cop" . . .etc.). I can't help notice the correlation between those that attack Democrat candidates, but defend the candidate who isn't a Dem and is actively working to harm the party, either by intent or by personal convenience - either way the result is the same. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:24 pm Post subject:
ribeye wrote:
Wilt wrote:
ribeye wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Fwiw, the judicial does not serve to settle arguments between the legislative and the executive. It exists to rule on matters of law.
Who was it that settled the question in Nixon v US?
It was Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski that issued the subpoena, leading to USA vs Nixon at the Supreme Court. It wasn't Congress. It was a dispute within the executive branch.
This is true. What is also true is that it will be the SCOTUS who will also settle the dispute between the executive and legislative vis a vis the various subpoenas issued by the legislative that are not being honored by the executive.
The point was that the court isn't a referee between the interests of two branches. It is an arbiter of law. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Fwiw, the judicial does not serve to settle arguments between the legislative and the executive. It exists to rule on matters of law.
Who was it that settled the question in Nixon v US?
It was Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski that issued the subpoena, leading to USA vs Nixon at the Supreme Court. It wasn't Congress. It was a dispute within the executive branch.
This is true. What is also true is that it will be the SCOTUS who will also settle the dispute between the executive and legislative vis a vis the various subpoenas issued by the legislative that are not being honored by the executive.
Which goes back to what was written earlier. The House has the sole power of impeachment, and it issued lawful, legitimate subpoenas. Even if it goes to the Supreme Court (which is what Trump wants), the process shouldn't depend on what the Supreme Court says about a power given to the House and that is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Which makes Turley's argument a weak argument. I think that's why the House is right in proceeding without waiting for the courts and can have a legitimate article of impeachment that refers to obstruction of Congress.
Again, I disagree. Though I don't agree with Trump and his blockade or his faulty logic, these issues of disagreement between the branches have been ongoing issues (from long before the Trump administration) that need to be settled one way or the other. We need answers, though I wish we had different membership in the court.
Congress does have subpoena power but even that has limitation. What if congress subpoenaed Obama's grades? Is it automatic that he would have to turn them over just because of a subpoena?
I also believe that the SCOTUS will rule against Trump on all, or nearly all, of the issues regarding turning over information or providing congress with the witnesses they have subpoenaed.
Maybe because "The House Shall Have Sole Power To See The President's Academic Records" isn't in the Constitution. As many have said, if you want to claim executive privilege or plead the 5th, show up and do so. Ignoring the subpoenas as if they're worthless and then having the Supreme Court potentially rule against the House (I don't have the same confidence that you do about what the SC will say on this) takes away a power explicitly written in the Constitution. Might as well take impeachment out of the Constitution, if the Supreme Court will have the final say. _________________ ¡Hala Madrid!
Last edited by Wilt on Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29336 Location: La La Land
Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:28 pm Post subject:
Also the portrayal of this thread as an echo chamber is laughable and uninformed. Whether it's big practical arguments (like when we should've impeached or some of Warren's proposals) or out there hypotheticals (when I argued for the Dems to accept Chinese election interference if Trump is gonna use Russia again). There have been a ton of spirited debates in this thread. Ask Eddie how some of our thoughts on Biden differ from his, and he'll tell you how far this thread is from a everyone-agrees-with-everyone hive mind.
Which draws a sharp contrast to the uniformity of Trump supporters regurgitating the same conservative media talking points. There is alot of projection and I'm-rubber-you're-glue with the echo chamber assertion. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:32 pm Post subject:
kikanga wrote:
Also the portrayal of this thread as an echo chamber is laughable and uninformed. Whether it's big practical arguments (like when we should've impeached or some of Warren's proposals) or out there hypotheticals (when I argued for the Dems to accept Chinese election interference if Trump is gonna use Russia again). There have been a ton of spirited debates in this thread. Ask Eddie how some of our thoughts on Biden differ from his, and he'll tell you how far this thread is from a everyone-agrees-with-everyone hive mind.
Which draws a sharp contrast to the uniformity of Trump supporters regurgitating the same conservative media talking points. There is alot of projection and I'm-rubber-you're-glue with the echo chamber assertion.
Of course it is projection, and frustration. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
If this was a thread where everyone agreed on everything, I wouldn't be posting in it. It would get boring fast. Yes, almost everyone is left of center, but we range from moderately liberal to really progressive, and we disagree on important issues. _________________ ¡Hala Madrid!
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52656 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:49 pm Post subject:
Wilt wrote:
If this was a thread where everyone agreed on everything, I wouldn't be posting in it. It would get boring fast. Yes, almost everyone is left of center, but we range from moderately liberal to really progressive, and we disagree on important issues.
That's what you say! _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
If this was a thread where everyone agreed on everything, I wouldn't be posting in it. It would get boring fast. Yes, almost everyone is left of center, but we range from moderately liberal to really progressive, and we disagree on important issues.
Only thing I think we all agree on is that I'm always right.
Baseless anti-thread propaganda.
I just finished a 7 hour uninterrupted, unfiltered segment on Joe Rogan's podcast where I clearly outlined why you're always wrong. _________________ ¡Hala Madrid!
After watching footage of Turley's testimony during Clinton's impeachment trial, which he was in favor of, I'm convinced he's lying about his voting record, in order to appear impartial. But, obviously being a Republican witness for two impeachment trials (and there's only been 3), and arguing in favor of only Republicans, it's obvious he did not vote for Bill Clinton or Obama or Hillary. He's a big, fat liar.
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29336 Location: La La Land
Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:33 pm Post subject:
greenfrog wrote:
So in light of all the discussion about inappropriate talk shows Hillary just went on Howard Stern...
Quote:
Unlike other alt-talkers, such as Howard Stern, who fixate on carnal pleasures and often seem contemptuous of their guests, Rogan is unfailingly enthusiastic and good-natured toward his interviewees, even the most ridiculous among them, with whom he generally wants to talk ideas, not (bleep). “For me, it’s like, ‘Ooh, boy! I get to talk to guys like [vaccine skeptic and fitness guru] Ben Greenfield and Jonathan Haidt, and all these different people, and learn some stuff,’” Rogan said in a recent episode with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. “And I’ve clearly learned way more from doing this podcast then I ever would have learned without it.“
So in light of all the discussion about inappropriate talk shows Hillary just went on Howard Stern...
What exactly is inappropriate about Howard over the last decade? He's a pretty good interviewer of high profile people. He's still self-serving and often simplistic, but the days of having porn stars and drunk midgets (RIP Hank) are long gone.
Also the portrayal of this thread as an echo chamber is laughable and uninformed. Whether it's big practical arguments (like when we should've impeached or some of Warren's proposals) or out there hypotheticals (when I argued for the Dems to accept Chinese election interference if Trump is gonna use Russia again). There have been a ton of spirited debates in this thread. Ask Eddie how some of our thoughts on Biden differ from his, and he'll tell you how far this thread is from a everyone-agrees-with-everyone hive mind.
Which draws a sharp contrast to the uniformity of Trump supporters regurgitating the same conservative media talking points. There is alot of projection and I'm-rubber-you're-glue with the echo chamber assertion.
The truly laughable and uniformed opinion is the one that doesn’t realize this thread represents a point of view significantly left of the average American.
Also the portrayal of this thread as an echo chamber is laughable and uninformed. Whether it's big practical arguments (like when we should've impeached or some of Warren's proposals) or out there hypotheticals (when I argued for the Dems to accept Chinese election interference if Trump is gonna use Russia again). There have been a ton of spirited debates in this thread. Ask Eddie how some of our thoughts on Biden differ from his, and he'll tell you how far this thread is from a everyone-agrees-with-everyone hive mind.
Which draws a sharp contrast to the uniformity of Trump supporters regurgitating the same conservative media talking points. There is alot of projection and I'm-rubber-you're-glue with the echo chamber assertion.
The truly laughable and uniformed opinion is the one that doesn’t realize this thread represents a point of view significantly left of the average American.
Describe the average American, so we have a reference point here.
Also the portrayal of this thread as an echo chamber is laughable and uninformed. Whether it's big practical arguments (like when we should've impeached or some of Warren's proposals) or out there hypotheticals (when I argued for the Dems to accept Chinese election interference if Trump is gonna use Russia again). There have been a ton of spirited debates in this thread. Ask Eddie how some of our thoughts on Biden differ from his, and he'll tell you how far this thread is from a everyone-agrees-with-everyone hive mind.
Which draws a sharp contrast to the uniformity of Trump supporters regurgitating the same conservative media talking points. There is alot of projection and I'm-rubber-you're-glue with the echo chamber assertion.
The truly laughable and uniformed opinion is the one that doesn’t realize this thread represents a point of view significantly left of the average American.
Describe the average American, so we have a reference point here.
The person who’s point of view would be the average of all Americans point of views...
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52656 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:19 pm Post subject:
BigGameHames wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Also the portrayal of this thread as an echo chamber is laughable and uninformed. Whether it's big practical arguments (like when we should've impeached or some of Warren's proposals) or out there hypotheticals (when I argued for the Dems to accept Chinese election interference if Trump is gonna use Russia again). There have been a ton of spirited debates in this thread. Ask Eddie how some of our thoughts on Biden differ from his, and he'll tell you how far this thread is from a everyone-agrees-with-everyone hive mind.
Which draws a sharp contrast to the uniformity of Trump supporters regurgitating the same conservative media talking points. There is alot of projection and I'm-rubber-you're-glue with the echo chamber assertion.
The truly laughable and uniformed opinion is the one that doesn’t realize this thread represents a point of view significantly left of the average American.
Describe the average American, so we have a reference point here.
The person who’s point of view would be the average of all Americans point of views...
Insightful.
It's long been established that you don't have the remotest concept of what "far left" means. So your idea of what constitutes the average American view point is moot. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Also the portrayal of this thread as an echo chamber is laughable and uninformed. Whether it's big practical arguments (like when we should've impeached or some of Warren's proposals) or out there hypotheticals (when I argued for the Dems to accept Chinese election interference if Trump is gonna use Russia again). There have been a ton of spirited debates in this thread. Ask Eddie how some of our thoughts on Biden differ from his, and he'll tell you how far this thread is from a everyone-agrees-with-everyone hive mind.
Which draws a sharp contrast to the uniformity of Trump supporters regurgitating the same conservative media talking points. There is alot of projection and I'm-rubber-you're-glue with the echo chamber assertion.
The truly laughable and uniformed opinion is the one that doesn’t realize this thread represents a point of view significantly left of the average American.
Describe the average American, so we have a reference point here.
The person who’s point of view would be the average of all Americans point of views...
Also the portrayal of this thread as an echo chamber is laughable and uninformed. Whether it's big practical arguments (like when we should've impeached or some of Warren's proposals) or out there hypotheticals (when I argued for the Dems to accept Chinese election interference if Trump is gonna use Russia again). There have been a ton of spirited debates in this thread. Ask Eddie how some of our thoughts on Biden differ from his, and he'll tell you how far this thread is from a everyone-agrees-with-everyone hive mind.
Which draws a sharp contrast to the uniformity of Trump supporters regurgitating the same conservative media talking points. There is alot of projection and I'm-rubber-you're-glue with the echo chamber assertion.
The truly laughable and uniformed opinion is the one that doesn’t realize this thread represents a point of view significantly left of the average American.
Describe the average American, so we have a reference point here.
The person who’s point of view would be the average of all Americans point of views...
Insightful.
It's long been established that you don't have the remotest concept of what "far left" means. So your idea of what constitutes the average American view point is moot.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. But I genuinely am. You really don’t realize just how out of touch you are with a typical American viewpoint.
Also the portrayal of this thread as an echo chamber is laughable and uninformed. Whether it's big practical arguments (like when we should've impeached or some of Warren's proposals) or out there hypotheticals (when I argued for the Dems to accept Chinese election interference if Trump is gonna use Russia again). There have been a ton of spirited debates in this thread. Ask Eddie how some of our thoughts on Biden differ from his, and he'll tell you how far this thread is from a everyone-agrees-with-everyone hive mind.
Which draws a sharp contrast to the uniformity of Trump supporters regurgitating the same conservative media talking points. There is alot of projection and I'm-rubber-you're-glue with the echo chamber assertion.
The truly laughable and uniformed opinion is the one that doesn’t realize this thread represents a point of view significantly left of the average American.
Describe the average American, so we have a reference point here.
The person who’s point of view would be the average of all Americans point of views...
And who's that person?
The theoretical most typical, expectable, average American. It’s not a real person. Are you misunderstanding what I’m saying? How could that be a specific person?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
As many have said, if you want to claim executive privilege or plead the 5th, show up and do so. Ignoring the subpoenas as if they're worthless and then having the Supreme Court potentially rule against the House (I don't have the same confidence that you do about what the SC will say on this) takes away a power explicitly written in the Constitution. Might as well take impeachment out of the Constitution, if the Supreme Court will have the final say.
